5 ms·

This has no place on HN. Deepak Chopra is a charlatan on par with some edgy teenager running his own blog but professing to be the equivalent of a respected do

by s_dev 3y ago

This has no place on HN. Deepak Chopra is a charlatan on par with some edgy teenager running his own blog but professing to be the equivalent of a respected doctor or scientist. Here he is getting his "beliefs" exposed to some pretty basic questions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka--VV-_t_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka--VV-_t_U I'm going to flag this so dang can investigate further.

lisper 3y ago
You can flag a post as inappropriate by clicking the "flag" link under the headline. If a post gets flagged enough, it disappears from the home page.
msarrel 3y ago
I completely agree with this comment
23B1 3y ago
The conversation on HN will be interesting and valuable though. I vote 'keep' Edit: it already is, as you can see. Baby/bathwater etc.
- s_dev 3y ago
  Nope -- successfully flagged. It's all nonsense -- the HN mod made the right call.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    If you read the comments, it's quite a bit of good advice, especially in tech where employees are treated like chattel instead of people. But hey, congratulations on the 'win'
qumpis 3y ago
I've never heard of the person, but the video you linked doesn't seem to do a good job of exposing charlatism at all, it's a rather strange meme of a moment taken out of context. Edit: this random post on reddit seems to question this person's techings (?) And imo do a better job at 'exposing' https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/d1ewq/why_deepak_chopra_is_a_dangerous_charlatan/?xpromo_edp=enabled https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/d1ewq/why_deepak_c...
- s_dev 3y ago
  A short transcript from the video: Chopra says 'all beliefs are a cover up for insecurity' An academic asks him "Do you believe that"? This shows the entire premise of whatever argument he's trying to make is completely unfounded, deeply flawed and kinda stupid. That's Deepak's career in a nutshell. Nothing he says stands up to the most basic scrutiny.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > This shows the entire premise of whatever argument he's trying to make is completely unfounded, deeply flawed and kinda stupid. Can you explain how this short excerpt "shows"[1] that it is a fact that "the entire premise of whatever argument he's trying to make is completely unfounded, deeply flawed and kinda stupid"? > That's Deepak's career in a nutshell. Nothing he says stands up to the most basic scrutiny. I do not believe that you have actually reviewed all of Chopra's work. I think you are quite literally making things up, or hallucinating. [1] What forces/processes are involved in this "showing"? Do you play any role?
    - s_dev 3y ago
      This is exactly the reason he uses big words and conflates scientific terms with his own ideas -- to sow confusion and hopefully be passed off on the benefit of the doubt. It's all just "chicken feed" and you've fallen hook line and sinker for it. There is zero academic or scientific value to what he says. Can you name one decent contribution this guy has made to any field?
      - mistermann 3y ago
        >This is exactly the reason he uses big words and conflates scientific terms with his own ideas -- to sow confusion and hopefully be passed off on the benefit of the doubt. It's all just "chicken feed" and you've fallen hook line and sinker for it. Adding some mind reading in (Chopra's, and mine) for some bonus points now? Will you be demonstrating more of your supernatural abilities? > There is zero academic or scientific value to what he says. I continue to stand on: I do not believe that you have actually reviewed all of Chopra's work. I think you are quite literally making things up, or hallucinating. > Can you name one decent contribution this guy has made to any field? I don't really know much about him, and I suspect you do not either, though you may not have a sound understanding of your level of understanding due to the misleading nature of human consciousness combined with the norms of the culture you were raised in...which somewhat ironically, is the domain that Chopra's alleged expertise is in.
mistermann 3y ago
Is there some rule on HN that if a member of HN holds the subjective belief (which is what it is technically, though beliefs often appear as facts/knowledge to the one who holds them, complicating matters substantially) that someone "is" "a charlatan on par with some edgy teenager running his own blog but professing to be the equivalent of a respected doctor or scientist", any content from that person doesn't belong on the site?
- s_dev 3y ago
  The HN rule that is being broken here is that this article doesn't and couldn't possibly appeal to the curiosity of nerds. It's just fraudulent nonsense.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...
fkcgnad 3y ago
I think the content of this post is pretty bad and a lot of it is bullshit. But I disagree with your logic here. You should not flag a post based off of character you should flag a post based off of the content. Deepaks reputation should not preclude his article from getting posted here if the post is genuinely good. Let's focus on the statement he is making himself rather then judging the person behind the statement. Either way, like I said I think the whole discussion on arbitrary definitions of random words is bs, but that is besides the point I am making here.

by s_dev 3y ago

lisper 3y ago

You can flag a post as inappropriate by clicking the "flag" link under the headline. If a post gets flagged enough, it disappears from the home page.

msarrel 3y ago

I completely agree with this comment

23B1 3y ago

The conversation on HN will be interesting and valuable though. I vote 'keep' Edit: it already is, as you can see. Baby/bathwater etc.

s_dev 3y ago
Nope -- successfully flagged. It's all nonsense -- the HN mod made the right call.
- 23B1 3y ago
  If you read the comments, it's quite a bit of good advice, especially in tech where employees are treated like chattel instead of people. But hey, congratulations on the 'win'

qumpis 3y ago

I've never heard of the person, but the video you linked doesn't seem to do a good job of exposing charlatism at all, it's a rather strange meme of a moment taken out of context. Edit: this random post on reddit seems to question this person's techings (?) And imo do a better job at 'exposing' https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/d1ewq/why_deepak_chopra_is_a_dangerous_charlatan/?xpromo_edp=enabled https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/d1ewq/why_deepak_c...

s_dev 3y ago
A short transcript from the video: Chopra says 'all beliefs are a cover up for insecurity' An academic asks him "Do you believe that"? This shows the entire premise of whatever argument he's trying to make is completely unfounded, deeply flawed and kinda stupid. That's Deepak's career in a nutshell. Nothing he says stands up to the most basic scrutiny.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > This shows the entire premise of whatever argument he's trying to make is completely unfounded, deeply flawed and kinda stupid. Can you explain how this short excerpt "shows"[1] that it is a fact that "the entire premise of whatever argument he's trying to make is completely unfounded, deeply flawed and kinda stupid"? > That's Deepak's career in a nutshell. Nothing he says stands up to the most basic scrutiny. I do not believe that you have actually reviewed all of Chopra's work. I think you are quite literally making things up, or hallucinating. [1] What forces/processes are involved in this "showing"? Do you play any role?
  - s_dev 3y ago
    This is exactly the reason he uses big words and conflates scientific terms with his own ideas -- to sow confusion and hopefully be passed off on the benefit of the doubt. It's all just "chicken feed" and you've fallen hook line and sinker for it. There is zero academic or scientific value to what he says. Can you name one decent contribution this guy has made to any field?
    - mistermann 3y ago
      >This is exactly the reason he uses big words and conflates scientific terms with his own ideas -- to sow confusion and hopefully be passed off on the benefit of the doubt. It's all just "chicken feed" and you've fallen hook line and sinker for it. Adding some mind reading in (Chopra's, and mine) for some bonus points now? Will you be demonstrating more of your supernatural abilities? > There is zero academic or scientific value to what he says. I continue to stand on: I do not believe that you have actually reviewed all of Chopra's work. I think you are quite literally making things up, or hallucinating. > Can you name one decent contribution this guy has made to any field? I don't really know much about him, and I suspect you do not either, though you may not have a sound understanding of your level of understanding due to the misleading nature of human consciousness combined with the norms of the culture you were raised in...which somewhat ironically, is the domain that Chopra's alleged expertise is in.

mistermann 3y ago

Is there some rule on HN that if a member of HN holds the subjective belief (which is what it is technically, though beliefs often appear as facts/knowledge to the one who holds them, complicating matters substantially) that someone "is" "a charlatan on par with some edgy teenager running his own blog but professing to be the equivalent of a respected doctor or scientist", any content from that person doesn't belong on the site?

s_dev 3y ago
The HN rule that is being broken here is that this article doesn't and couldn't possibly appeal to the curiosity of nerds. It's just fraudulent nonsense.
- mistermann 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...

fkcgnad 3y ago

I think the content of this post is pretty bad and a lot of it is bullshit. But I disagree with your logic here. You should not flag a post based off of character you should flag a post based off of the content. Deepaks reputation should not preclude his article from getting posted here if the post is genuinely good. Let's focus on the statement he is making himself rather then judging the person behind the statement. Either way, like I said I think the whole discussion on arbitrary definitions of random words is bs, but that is besides the point I am making here.